by nohitter151 » Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:57 am
chrisjj wrote:nohitter151 wrote:chrisjj wrote:You'd hope so.
So then why the following comment:
chrisjj wrote:That's odd,
Because if the fault was fixed in 1282, it wouldn't be verified in 1282. Perhaps Peke meant to write "Fixed in 1282"?
No, it was fixed in 1266. Peke verified the fix using build 1282.
[quote="chrisjj"][quote="nohitter151"][quote="chrisjj"]You'd hope so.[/quote]
So then why the following comment:
[quote="chrisjj"]That's odd, [/quote][/quote]Because if the fault was fixed in 1282, it wouldn't be verified in 1282. Perhaps Peke meant to write "Fixed in 1282"?[/quote]
No, it was fixed in 1266. Peke verified the fix using build 1282.